Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “societal responses”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2011

Climate Change Impacts and Responses: Societal Indicators for the National Climate Assessment

The Climate Change Impacts and Responses: Societal Indicators for the National Climate Assessment workshop, sponsored by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for the National Climate Assessment (NCA), was held on April 28-29, 2011 at The Madison Hotel in Washington, DC. A group of 56 experts (see list in Appendix B) convened to share their experiences. Participants brought to bear a wide range of disciplinary expertise in the social and natural sciences, sector experience, and knowledge about developing and implementing indicators for a range of purposes. Participants included representatives from federal and state government, non-governmental organizations, tribes, universities, and communities. The purpose of the workshop was to assist the NCA in developing a strategic framework for climate-related physical, ecological, and socioeconomic indicators that can be easily communicated with the U.S. population and that will support monitoring, assessment, prediction, evaluation, and decision-making. The NCA indicators are envisioned as a relatively small number of policy-relevant integrated indicators designed to provide a consistent, objective, and transparent overview of major variations in climate impacts, vulnerabilities, adaptation, and mitigation activities across sectors, regions, and timeframes. The workshop participants were asked to provide input on a number of topics, including: (1) categories of societal indicators for the NCA; (2) alternative approaches to constructing indicators and the better approaches for NCA to consider; (3) specific requirements and criteria for implementing the indicators; and (4) sources of data for and creators of such indicators. Socioeconomic indicators could include demographic, cultural, behavioral, economic, public health, and policy components relevant to impacts, vulnerabilities, and adaptation to climate change as well as both proactive and reactive responses to climate change. Participants provided inputs through in-depth discussion in breakout sessions, plenary sessions on break-out results, and several panels that provided key insights about indicators, lessons learned through experience with developing and implementing indicators, and thoughts on how the NCA could proceed to develop indicators for the NCA.

Kenney, Melissa A.↗
NASA NTRS2022

Systemic Risk

Systemic risk is the name given to impacts that spread within and across systems and sectors (e.g. ecosystems, health, infrastructure and the food sector) via the movements of people, goods, capital and information within and across boundaries (e.g. regions, countries and continents). The spread of these impacts can lead to potentially existential consequences and system collapse across a range of time horizons. Globalization contributes to systemic risk affecting people worldwide. The impacts of climate change or COVID-19 show how the challenges of addressing systemic risk go beyond conventional risk management and governance. Critical system interdependencies, amplified by underlying vulnerabilities, highlight that there is a growing need to better understand cascading impacts, systemic risks and the possible political (governance) and societal responses. This includes improving our understanding of the root causes of systemic risk, both biophysical and socio-economic, and related information needs. Addressing contemporary challenges in terms of systemic risk requires integrating different systems perspectives and fostering system thinking, while implementing key intergovernmental agendas, such as the Paris Agreement, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and the Sustainable Development Goals.

systemic risk↗
DOE OSTI2020

The ongoing need for high-resolution regional climate models: Process understanding and stakeholder information

Regional climate modeling addresses our need to understand and simulate climatic processes and phenomena unresolved in global models. High resolution models are generally more skillful in simulating extremes, such as heavy precipitation, strong winds, and severe storms. In addition, research has shown that fine-scale features such as mountains, coastlines, lakes, irrigation, land use, and urban heat islands can substantially influence a region’s climate and its response to changing forcings. Regional climate simulations explicitly simulating convection are now being performed, providing an opportunity to illuminate new physical behavior that previously was represented by parameterizations with large uncertainties. Regional and global models are both advancing toward higher resolution, as computational capacity increases. However, the resolution and ensemble size necessary to produce a sufficient statistical sample of these processes in global models has proven too costly for contemporary supercomputing systems. Regional climate models are thus indispensable tools that complement global models for understanding regional climate variability and change, and are critical for supporting societal responses to changing climate.

Gutowski, William↗
NASA NTRS2015

A Framework for the Cross-Sectoral Integration of Multi-Model Impact Projections: Land Use Decisions Under Climate Impacts Uncertainties

Climate change and its impacts already pose considerable challenges for societies that will further increase with global warming (IPCC, 2014a, b). Uncertainties of the climatic response to greenhouse gas emissions include the potential passing of large-scale tipping points (e.g. Lenton et al., 2008; Levermann et al., 2012; Schellnhuber, 2010) and changes in extreme meteorological events (Field et al., 2012) with complex impacts on societies (Hallegatte et al., 2013). Thus climate change mitigation is considered a necessary societal response for avoiding uncontrollable impacts (Conference of the Parties, 2010). On the other hand, large-scale climate change mitigation itself implies fundamental changes in, for example, the global energy system. The associated challenges come on top of others that derive from equally important ethical imperatives like the fulfilment of increasing food demand that may draw on the same resources. For example, ensuring food security for a growing population may require an expansion of cropland, thereby reducing natural carbon sinks or the area available for bio-energy production. So far, available studies addressing this problem have relied on individual impact models, ignoring uncertainty in crop model and biome model projections. Here, we propose a probabilistic decision framework that allows for an evaluation of agricultural management and mitigation options in a multi-impactmodel setting. Based on simulations generated within the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISI-MIP), we outline how cross-sectorally consistent multi-model impact simulations could be used to generate the information required for robust decision making. Using an illustrative future land use pattern, we discuss the trade-off between potential gains in crop production and associated losses in natural carbon sinks in the new multiple crop- and biome-model setting. In addition, crop and water model simulations are combined to explore irrigation increases as one possible measure of agricultural intensification that could limit the expansion of cropland required in response to climate change and growing food demand. This example shows that current impact model uncertainties pose an important challenge to long-term mitigation planning and must not be ignored in long-term strategic decision making

farmlands↗
DOE OSTI2024

An editorial to the Special Issue on “Severe climate Risks”

The history of this Special Issue (https://www.sciencedirect.com/special-issue/10JD7LNJNQ0) indirectly dates back to the early 1990s, when the signature of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change kicked-off an international political process based on one overarching and foundational principle: to avoid “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” at the global level. More than three decades later, such a principle remains central, though complementary aims made their way through the climate negotiation process, such as the importance of ensuring equity and justice, to give just one example here. Scientific knowledge also considerably progressed and we know more about the range of risks that climate change imposes and will continue to impose to the biosphere and humankind, worldwide and at all territorial levels. It is also clear that societal responses to these risks —“climate adaptation” as we know it— are increasingly happening, but definitely not at the pace of climate risk trends (Berrang-Ford et al., 2021, Erisken et al., 2021, Olazabal and Ruiz De Gopegui, 2021, Magnan et al., 2023a, Reckien et al., 2023, UNEP, 2023). As a result, concerns have emerged over the recent years in both the scientific and policy arenas around the idea that societies may not be able to address all climate risks, and that limits to adaptation and induced residual risks need to be considered more seriously. Such concerns further highlight the continuing importance of the imperative to minimise dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, at any scale. But what does “dangerous interference” mean? How can we decide that we are entering the “dangerous” space, compared to a broader range of climate risks that would qualify as problematic but not necessarily “dangerous”? Who should make such a decision? Which conditions drive risk severity over time, including in the future? And what would be the environmental, economic, social and cultural implications of prioritising some climate risks over others? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was a pioneer in addressing such questions through the development of the “Key Risks” framing that describes those climate risks having the potential to become dangerous or “severe” over the course of this century (Schellnhuber et al., 2006, Schneider et al., 2007, Oppenheimer et al., 2014, O’Neill et al., 2022). The Fifth and Sixth assessment cycles (AR5 and AR6) went a step further by identifying about 120 Key Risks across regions and sectors, and clustering them into 8 “Representative Key Risks” covering a range of geographical systems (low-lying coasts, and to terrestrial and ocean ecosystems), sectors (critical infrastructure, living standards, human health, food security, and water security) and human dimensions (peace and mobility) (Oppenheimer et al., 2014, O’Neill et al., 2022). This Special Issue was born of the efforts of a range of authors, during the development of the IPCC AR6 main Assessment Report between 2019 and 2022, to characterise Key Risks and Representative Key Risks, and advance knowledge on what shapes “severe climate risks” conceptually as well as in the real-world. The series of papers forming this Special Issue is not intended to cover the topic exhaustively, but rather to give readers an overview through the following narrative: defining “severe climate risks” is highly challenging (Magnan et al., 2023b), but knowledge is expanding on the driving climate hazards (Tebaldi et al., 2023) and their implications on geographical systems, sectors and human dimensions, using here food security (Mirzabaev et al., 2023), human mobility (Gilmore et al., 2024) and peace (Buhaug et al., 2023) as illustrative examples. The overall intention is to support especially decision-makers, whatever the scale or sector considered, in asking severity-driven questions to identify sector- and context-specific “priority” risks from climate change.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Typologies of actionable climate information and its use

Developing actionable climate information and integrating it into decision-making are two crucial elements for promoting effective societal responses to climate change. However, what constitutes actionable climate information, and how it is used, varies based on the actors, systems, and scales that are relevant to specific decisions. Yet, the terms ‘actionable climate information’ or ‘use of climate information’ are used abstractly. There is a lack of holistic understanding of the various types of information that can be deemed as usable by different users, and the different ways in which they may be used in decision-making. Typologies or generalizable categorizations can help both knowledge producers and users to better envision the entire landscape of climate information and its uses and can help to reduce the time and cost of actionable knowledge production. Through systematic coding and analysis of ~ 4 years of co-production engagements between climate scientists and resource managers, this paper presents empirically derived typologies of actionable climate information and its use, and explores whether certain uses are better informed by specific types of climate information. These typologies provide a valuable starting point for climate information producers, users, and boundary spanners working on climate-informed resource management, to reduce some of the time-intensive elements of the process.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

NPP Simulators for Coupled Thermal and Electric Power Dispatch

The Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) program within the United States Department of Energy supports extending the operation of the U.S. commercial nuclear power plant (NPP) fleet. Within the LWRS program, the Flexible Plant Operation and Generation (FPOG) Pathway works to diversify the revenue streams of light water reactors (LWRs) by opening opportunities for the co-generation of non-electric products in addition to supplying electrical power to the grid. Recent events have added greater motivation to these efforts. For example, the recent Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) passed by the U.S. federal government offers substantial tax incentives for producing clean hydrogen, the technology readiness level of dispatchable and high-efficiency hydrogen production has dramatically increased in a short time, and societal response to world climate change is driving a transition away from fossil fuels. Producing hydrogen with maximum efficiency using nuclear power requires dispatching both electrical and thermal power from the nuclear plant to the hydrogen plant, so testing concepts of operations for combined electrical and thermal power dispatch (TPD) from an NNP to a hydrogen plant is of interest. This report documents achievement of the Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) program milestone “Install and demonstrate a vendor-developed simulator on the Human Systems Simulation Laboratory (HSS) for dispatch of LWR electrical power to a close-coupled electrolysis plant” with a due date of Dec. 22, 2022. Several factors provide motivation for this effort. Coupling the power generation deck of a nuclear power plant to a hydrogen production facility introduces new possibilities for operational transients that must be addressed. In particular, the performance of the integrated system during startup and shutdown of the hydrogen production facility, as well as offnormal conditions, need to be evaluated to ensure there are no adverse effects on the operation of the existing NPP. The concept of operations involving the NPP, the hydrogen plant, and the electric power grid must be tested using NPP simulators and operating procedures that have been modified for TPD operations. These tests must also include dynamic simulations of the coupled tertiary thermal and electric loads as well as coordinated activities with NPP operators, tertiary load operators and grid power coordinators. The report summarizes progress in developing and testing full-scope NPP simulators at the HSSL, including a generic BWR simulator from GSE Systems, Inc. and generic PWR simulator from Westinghouse. In the case of the TPD-GBWR Simulator from GSE Systems, Inc., a BWR is thermally coupled to a high temperature electrolysis (HTE) plant that produces hydrogen and oxygen from de-ionized water. The hydrogen plant is not explicitly simulated but only included as a transient heat sink. A thermal power dispatch (TPD) system transfers heat between the steam systems at the BWR and the hydrogen plant. Operational results from two versions of the modified simulator are presented. The first version uses synthetic oil as a heat transfer fluid in a closed delivery heat loop (DHL) that generates steam at the hydrogen plant. The second version uses steam as the heat transfer fluid in a delivery steam line (DSL) to provide steam to the hydrogen plant. For both versions, the estimated thermal power delivery distance is approximately one kilometer. The amount of thermal power dispatched in the simulators is 15% of the total reactor thermal power such that the simulators provide a tool to study the feasibility of coupling a BWR to industrial processes that benefit from a combination electrical and thermal power dispatch. Ongoing work within a CRADA is also developing a full-scope PWR simulator provided by Westinghouse for both thermal and electric power coupling. This simulator is based on a PWR plant with two three-loop Westinghouse reactors. Westinghouse PWRs are sufficiently similar that a simulator of a three-loop reactor is an appropriate representation for two-loop and four-loop PWR reactors. The three-loop simulator will initially be modified for close-coupling to a 100 MW HTE hydrogen production plant that will require approximately 25 MW of thermal power while operating at its maximum rated capacity. The simulator testing will include full coupling to dynamic simulations of a hydrogen production plant and a representative bulk electric grid. The simulator provided by Westinghouse is similar to the GPWR simulator that INL has already obtained from GSE Systems but has a few important added benefits. First, the Westinghouse simulator is based on digital controls and has additional screens that can be called up to show parameter trends to assist operators in decision-making. The Westinghouse simulator also has upgrades to the controls and hardware representations, such as valve actuators, that make it more realistic and flexible in terms of accurately sim

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Dissemination of Global Flood Severity and Surface Water Mapping using Remote Sensing Data to Global Stakeholders

Flooding is a natural event that occurs frequently with high severity worldwide, responsible for significant societal and economic impacts. Disaster managers face significant challenges managing essential information for preparedness, response, and recovery efforts. The development of an open access, global flood alerting system for effective identification of flood impacted areas, classification of potential impacts, and the formulation of effective emergency response measures requires the incorporation of a wide variety of flood models and remote sensing data sources from multiple platforms. NASA is currently funding projects focused on flood forecasting, post-event flood mapping, flood depth estimation and pre-event flood severity estimation using Earth observation (EO) datasets and derived flood products. A new initiative in the Disasters Program is underway to disseminate flood products from different hydrologic models and sensors to global stakeholders via Pacific Disaster Center’s DisasterAWARE®, NASA’s Disasters Mapping Portal and potentially other mechanisms. This initiative focuses on improving response capacity and use of EO products in near real-time by a broader community for resource planning in case of extreme events. As part of this initiative, we have deployed Model of Models (MoM) – an open-source ensemble approach, that integrates outputs from hydrologic models and EO data from optical imagery to assess flood severity daily at sub-watershed level globally. The MoM output is integrated with the incident event system of DisasterAWARE to generate flood severity risk and flood impact boundaries, which are disseminated via the DisasterAWARE platform to different stakeholders globally for decision-making and response efforts. The next step will focus on using MoM outputs to estimate flood depth and extent mapping using high-resolution Synthetic Aperture Radar imagery, impact assessment using optical imagery and population datasets, and damage estimation using critical infrastructure datasets, which would be disseminated via DisasterAWARE to decision-makers, emergency managers and first responders around the world.

flood↗
DOE OSTI2024

Uncertain Pathways to a Future Safe Climate

Abstract Global climate change is often thought of as a steady and approximately predictable physical response to increasing forcings, which then requires commensurate adaptation. But adaptation has practical, cultural and biological limits, and climate change may pose unanticipated global hazards, sudden changes or other surprises–as may societal adaptation and mitigation responses. These poorly known factors could substantially affect the urgency of mitigation as well as adaptation decisions. We outline a strategy for better accommodating these challenges by making climate science more integrative, in order to identify and quantify known and novel physical risks including those arising from interactions with ecosystems and society. We need to do this even–or especially–when they are highly uncertain, and to explore risks and opportunities associated with mitigation and adaptation responses by engaging across disciplines. We argue that upcoming climate assessments need to be more risk‐aware, and suggest ways of achieving this. These strategies improve the chances of anticipating potential surprises and identifying and communicating “safe landing” pathways that meet UN Sustainable Development Goals and guide humanity toward a better future.

Sherwood, S. C.↗
DOE OSTI2025

Abstraction hierarchy to define biofoundry workflows and operations for interoperable synthetic biology research and applications

Lack of standardization in biofoundries limits the scalability and efficiency of synthetic biology research. Here, we propose an abstraction hierarchy that organizes biofoundry activities into four interoperable levels: Project, Service/Capability, Workflow, and Unit Operation, effectively streamlining the Design‑Build‑Test‑Learn (DBTL) cycle. This framework enables more modular, flexible, and automated experimental workflows. It improves communication between researchers and systems, supports reproducibility, and facilitates better integration of software tools and artificial intelligence. Our approach lays the foundation for a globally interoperable biofoundry network, advancing collaborative synthetic biology and accelerating innovation in response to scientific and societal challenges.

Kim, Haseong↗
DOE OSTI2020

Rainfall manipulation experiments as simulated by terrestrial biosphere models: Where do we stand?

Changes in rainfall amounts and patterns have been observed and are expected to continue in the near future with potentially significant ecological and societal consequences. Modelling vegetation responses to changes in rainfall is thus crucial to project water and carbon cycles in the future. In this study, we present the results of a new model-data intercomparison project, where we tested the ability of 10 terrestrial biosphere models to reproduce the observed sensitivity of ecosystem productivity to rainfall changes at 10 sites across the globe, in nine of which, rainfall exclusion and/or irrigation experiments had been performed. The key results are as follows: (a) Inter-model variation is generally large and model agreement varies with timescales. In severely water-limited sites, models only agree on the interannual variability of evapotranspiration and to a smaller extent on gross primary productivity. In more mesic sites, model agreement for both water and carbon fluxes is typically higher on fine (daily–monthly) timescales and reduces on longer (seasonal–annual) scales. (b) Models on average overestimate the relationship between ecosystem productivity and mean rainfall amounts across sites (in space) and have a low capacity in reproducing the temporal (interannual) sensitivity of vegetation productivity to annual rainfall at a given site, even though observation uncertainty is comparable to inter-model variability. (c) Most models reproduced the sign of the observed patterns in productivity changes in rainfall manipulation experiments but had a low capacity in reproducing the observed magnitude of productivity changes. Models better reproduced the observed productivity responses due to rainfall exclusion than addition. (d) All models attribute ecosystem productivity changes to the intensity of vegetation stress and peak leaf area, whereas the impact of the change in growing season length is negligible. Finally, the relative contribution of the peak leaf area and vegetation stress intensity was highly variable among models.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2009

Laboratory for Atmospheres 2008 Technical Highlights

The 2008 Technical Highlights describes the efforts of all members of the Laboratory for Atmospheres. Their dedication to advancing Earth Science through conducting research, developing and running models, designing instruments, managing projects, running field campaigns, and numerous other activities, is highlighted in this report. The Laboratory for Atmospheres (Code 613) is part of the Earth Sciences Division (Code 610), formerly the Earth Sun Exploration Division, under the Sciences and Exploration Directorate (Code 600) based at NASA s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. In line with NASA s Exploration Initiative, the Laboratory executes a comprehensive research and technology development program dedicated to advancing knowledge and understanding of the atmospheres of Earth and other planets. The research program is aimed at understanding the influence of solar variability on the Earth s climate; predicting the weather and climate of Earth; understanding the structure, dynamics, and radiative properties of precipitation, clouds, and aerosols; understanding atmospheric chemistry, especially the role of natural and anthropogenic trace species on the ozone balance in the stratosphere and the troposphere; and advancing our understanding of physical properties of Earth s atmosphere. The research program identifies problems and requirements for atmospheric observations via satellite missions. Laboratory scientists conceive, design, develop, and implement ultraviolet, infrared, optical, radar, laser, and lidar technology for remote sensing of the atmosphere. Laboratory members conduct field measurements for satellite data calibration and validation, and carry out numerous modeling activities. These modeling activities include climate model simulations, modeling the chemistry and transport of trace species on regional-to-global scales, cloud-resolving models, and development of next-generation Earth system models. Interdisciplinary research is carried out in collaboration with other laboratories and research groups within the Earth Sciences Division, across the Sciences and Exploration Directorate, and with partners in universities and other Government agencies. The Laboratory for Atmospheres is a vital participant in NASA s research agenda. Our Laboratory often has relatively large programs, sizable satellite missions, and observational campaigns that require the cooperative and collaborative efforts of many scientists. We ensure an appropriate balance between our scientists responsibility for these large collaborative projects and their need for an active individual research agenda. This balance allows members of the Laboratory to continuously improve their scientific credentials. Members of the Laboratory interact with the general public to support a wide range of interests in the atmospheric sciences. Among other activities, the Laboratory raises the public s awareness of atmospheric science by presenting public lectures and demonstrations, by making scientific data available to wide audiences, by teaching, and by mentoring students and teachers. The Laboratory makes substantial efforts to attract new scientists to the various areas of atmospheric research. We strongly encourage the establishment of partnerships with Federal and state agencies that have operational responsibilities to promote the societal application of our science products. This report describes our role in NASA s mission, gives a broad description of our research, and summarizes our scientists major accomplishments during calendar year 2008. The report also contains useful information on human resources, scientific interactions, and outreach activities.

Cote, Charles E.↗
NASA NTRS2015

Atmospheric Research 2014 Technical Highlights

Atmospheric research in the Earth Sciences Division (610) consists of research and technology development programs dedicated to advancing knowledge and understanding of the atmosphere and its interaction with the climate of Earth. The Division's goals are to improve understanding of the dynamics and physical properties of precipitation, clouds, and aerosols; atmospheric chemistry, including the role of natural and anthropogenic trace species on the ozone balance in the stratosphere and the troposphere; and radiative properties of Earth's atmosphere and the influence of solar variability on the Earth's climate. Major research activities are carried out in the Mesoscale Atmospheric Processes Laboratory, the Climate and Radiation Laboratory, the Atmospheric Chemistry and Dynamics Laboratory, and the Wallops Field Support Office. The overall scope of the research covers an end-to-end process, starting with the identification of scientific problems, leading to observation requirements for remote-sensing platforms, technology and retrieval algorithm development; followed by flight projects and satellite missions; and eventually, resulting in data processing, analyses of measurements, and dissemination from flight projects and missions. Instrument scientists conceive, design, develop, and implement ultraviolet, infrared, optical, radar, laser, and lidar technology to remotely sense the atmosphere. Members of the various Laboratories conduct field measurements for satellite sensor calibration and data validation, and carry out numerous modeling activities. These modeling activities include climate model simulations, modeling the chemistry and transport of trace species on regional-to-global scales, cloud resolving models, and developing the next-generation Earth system models. Satellite missions, field campaigns, peer-reviewed publications, and successful proposals are essential at every stage of the research process to meeting our goals and maintaining leadership of the Earth Sciences Division in atmospheric science research. Figure 1.1 shows the 20-year record of peer-reviewed publications and proposals among the various Laboratories. This data shows that the scientific work being conducted in the Laboratories is competitive with the work being done elsewhere in universities and other government agencies. The office of Deputy Director for Atmospheric Research will strive to maintain this record by rigorously monitoring and promoting quality while emphasizing coordination and integration among atmospheric disciplines. Also, an appropriate balance will be maintained between the scientists' responsibility for large collaborative projects and missions and their need to carry out active science research as a principal investigator. This balance allows members of the Laboratories to improve their scientific credentials, and develop leadership potentials. Interdisciplinary research is carried out in collaboration with other laboratories and research groups within the Earth Sciences Division, across the Sciences and Exploration Directorate, and with partners in universities and other government agencies. Members of the Laboratories interact with the general public to support a wide range of interests in the atmospheric sciences. Among other activities, the Laboratories raise the public's awareness of atmospheric science by presenting public lectures and demonstrations, by making scientific data available to wide audiences, by teaching, and by mentoring students and teachers. The Atmosphere Laboratories make substantial efforts to attract and recruit new scientists to the various areas of atmospheric research. We strongly encourage the establishment of partnerships with Federal and state agencies that have operational responsibilities to promote the societal application of our science products. This report describes our role in NASA's mission, provides highlights of our research scope and activities, and summarizes our scientists' major accomplishments during calendar year 2014. The composition of the organization is shown in Figure 1.2 for each code. This report is published in a printed version with an electronic version on our atmospheres Web site, http://atmospheres.gsfc.nasa.gov/.

Technical↗
NASA NTRS2003

Laboratory for Atmospheres 2002 Technical Highlights

How can we improve our ability to predict the weather-tomorrow, next week, and into the future? How is the Earth's climate changing? What causes such change? And what are its costs? What can the atmospheres of distant planets teach us about our own planet and its evolution? The Laboratory for Atmospheres is helping to answer these and other scientific questions about our planet and its neighbors. The Laboratory conducts a broad theoretical and experimental research program studying all aspects of the atmospheres of the Earth and other planets, including their structural, dynamical, radiative, and chemical properties, with the overarching goal to provide better understanding and to improve prediction of the Earth's climate. Vigorous research is central to NASA's exploration of the frontiers of knowledge. NASA scientists play a key role in conceiving new space missions, providing mission requirements, and carrying out research to explore the behavior of planetary systems, including, notably, the Earth's. Our Laboratory's scientists also supply outside scientists with technical assistance and scientific data to further investigations not immediately addressed by NASA itself. Laboratory scientists submit competitive research proposals with diverse scientific or technological approaches to NASA and other Federal agencies to acquire research support. The Laboratory management strives to provide a working environment that promotes creativity, competition, and openness. The Laboratory for Atmospheres is a vital participant in NASA's research program. Our Laboratory often has relatively large programs, sizable satellite missions, or observational campaigns that require the cooperative and collaborative efforts of many scientists. We ensure an appropriate balance between our scientists' responsibility for these large collaborative projects and their need for an active individual research agenda. This balance allows members of the Laboratory to continuously improve their scientific credentials. The Laboratory places high importance on promoting and measuring quality in its scientific research. We strive to assure high quality through peer-review funding processes that support approximately 90% of the work in the Laboratory. The overall quality of our scientific efforts is evaluated periodically by committees of advisors from the external scientific community, as detailed in Appendix 2 of this document. Members of the Laboratory interact with the general public to support a wide range of interests in the atmospheric sciences. Among other activities, the Laboratory raises the public's awareness of atmospheric science by presenting public lectures and demonstrations, by making scientific data available to wide audiences, by teaching, and by mentoring students and teachers. Section 6 presents details of the Laboratory's outreach activities during 2002. The Laboratory is also committed to addressing the demographic imbalances that exist today in the atmospheric and space sciences. We must address these imbalances for our field to enjoy the full benefit of all of the Nation's talent. The Laboratory makes substantial efforts to attract new scientists to the fields of atmospheric and space sciences. We strongly encourage the establishment of partnerships with Federal and state agencies that have operational responsibilities to promote the societal application of Earth sciences.

Steven E. Platnick↗
DOE OSTI2025

New Mobility Technology Assessment - Benefits, Risks, and Safety

The age of vehicle automation is upon us. The fundamental perception and control technology is maturing as we speak (and write) with robo-taxis proliferating in select US cities. The news cycle is no longer filled with technological skepticism, but rather societal commentary on our collective response and use of the technology. This maturing of the technology is also accompanied by a renaissance in new types of urban movement technology to more effectively link people with goods, services, and employment, particularly in dense development areas where vehicle congestion (even automated vehicles) prevents high quality mobility. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory, through the DOE Clean Energy to Communities (C2C) program has worked with two jurisdictions to assess the benefits, risks, and safety concerns for a new product offering based on suspended cable technology which is fully automated and proposes an aerial network of self-propelled gondolas. The recognized need, independent of the technology, is to fairly assess the benefits of the proposed transportation system, assess its technical maturity, as well as risks and safety concerns. Using this new technology as an example, a technology represented by Swyft Cities, NREL developed a succession of mini-studies that characterized the technical maturity level, assessed the proposed benefits for Greenville, SC, examined the risks involved in moving forward with an emerging mobility technology, and determined the governing safety protocols and standards that are applicable to the space. These mini-case studies, though centered on Swyft Cities aerial automated gondola technology, are highly transferable to any type of new mobility technology and lays out a repeatable process for assessing new technology within an city or community context.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Understanding collective human movement dynamics during large-scale events using big geosocial data analytics

Conventional approaches for modeling human mobility pattern often focus on human activity and movement dynamics in their regular daily lives and cannot capture changes in human movement dynamics in response to large-scale events. With the rapid advancement of information and communication technologies, many researchers have adopted alternative data sources (e.g., cell phone records, GPS trajectory data) from private data vendors to study human movement dynamics in response to large-scale natural or societal events. Big geosocial data such as georeferenced tweets are publicly available and dynamically evolving as real-world events are happening, making it more likely to capture the real-time sentiments and responses of populations. However, precisely-geolocated geosocial data is scarce and biased toward urban population centers. In this research, we developed a big geosocial data analytical framework for extracting human movement dynamics in response to large-scale events from publicly available georeferenced tweets. The framework includes a two-stage data collection module that collects data in a more targeted fashion in order to mitigate the data scarcity issue of georeferenced tweets; in addition, a variable bandwidth kernel density estimation(VB-KDE) approach was adopted to fuse georeference information at different spatial scales, further augmenting the signals of human movement dynamics contained in georeferenced tweets. To correct for the sampling bias of georeferenced tweets, we adjusted the number of tweets for different spatial units (e.g., county, state) by population. To demonstrate the performance of the proposed analytic framework, we chose an astronomical event that occurred nationwide across the United States, i.e., the 2017 Great American Eclipse, as an example event and studied the human movement dynamics in response to this event. Finally, this analytic framework can easily be applied to other types of large-scale events such as hurricanes or earthquakes.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

The Role of Bjerknes and Shortwave Feedbacks in the Tropical Pacific SST Response to Global Warming

Abstract The evolution of tropical sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in response to greenhouse warming is of great societal and scientific interest. Most state‐of‐the‐art climate models predict a mean “El Niño‐like” warming pattern by century‐end, characterized by greater warming over the Pacific cold tongue compared to the western warm pool. However, it is unclear which proposed mechanism dominates in this response. Here, we present partially coupled abrupt CO 2 doubling experiments in which surface wind stress and shortwave heating are overridden to values from a control simulation. Contrary to previous studies, we find that experiments with overriding of surface wind stress exhibit only 58% of the full reduction in east‐west SST contrast. When both surface wind stress and shortwave flux are overridden, only 34% of the full reduction remains, controlled by spatially‐varying evaporative cooling. These results underscore the importance of Bjerknes and shortwave feedbacks in the tropical Pacific SST response to global warming.

Geology↗